INDIANA UNIVERSITY – SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Electric Cars and Pollution in
Indiana
An Undergraduate Honors Thesis by:
Nicholas R. McKay
Faculty Advisor:
Dr. Henry K. Wakhungu
Spring 2012
Page |1
Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana
Nicholas R. McKay
Environmental Management
Junior
Abstract submitted for SPEA Undergraduate Honors Thesis Presentations
Dr. Henry K. Wakhungu
Senior Lecturer
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Faculty Mentor
Despite the fact that many people are familiar with the negative effects associated with
the use of gasoline such as, air pollution, fluctuating costs, and reliance on foreign oil, it is still
the most commonly used transportation fuel in the United States.
In an attempt to mitigate some of the issues created by gasoline use, the U.S. government
has made efforts to transition away from gasoline by promoting various alternative fuels. Until
recently, the biologically-derived fuel, ethanol, was the primary alternative fuel promoted by the
U.S. government. Now, electric cars are considered to be a realistic alternative to gasoline
powered vehicles. Americans are becoming more interested in electric cars. They have already
been exposed to vehicles that use electricity as a means of propulsion in the form of hybrid
vehicles, such as the well-known Toyota Prius. The increased interest in electric vehicles is due
largely to rising gasoline prices, increasing concerns about the environment, and the introduction
of new electric cars that have overcome the problems of limited range and poor performance.
Although very few electric cars are currently available to consumers in the United States,
projections show that in the near future it is likely that many electric vehicles will be offered by a
wide variety of manufacturers, from traditional automakers such as General Motors to relatively
small and new companies such as Tesla Motors.
Although electric cars have many advantages over conventionally powered vehicles, they
may present unique environmental problems. Although electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe
emissions like conventionally powered vehicles, they still contribute to air pollution through the
use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s batteries. The amount of pollution that electric
cars produce is, therefore, directly tied to the source of electricity that charges the vehicle’s
batteries. In the state of Indiana, where electricity comes predominately from coal-fired power
plants, electric cars may contribute to greater air pollution through their use of coal-derived
electricity than comparable vehicles using gasoline would.
If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will generate more pollution than gasolinepowered vehicles, then policies that either bring about a change in the state’s electricity
generation profile, or that limit the number of electric cars that may be sold in the state should be
considered. If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will produce less pollution than gasoline
powered vehicles, then policies that encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles should be
considered.
Page |2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil .............................................................................................................. 5
Global Security ......................................................................................................................................... 6
OPEC .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Gasoline Prices...................................................................................................................................... 8
Iran and the Strait of Hormuz ............................................................................................................... 9
Pollution .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................................................... 10
Nitrogen Oxides .................................................................................................................................. 11
Sulfur Dioxide ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Solutions ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Politicians................................................................................................................................................ 14
Biofuels ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Electric Vehicles ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Electricity Sources .................................................................................................................................. 22
Electric Vehicle Pollution ........................................................................................................................... 24
1. Number of Electric Vehicles ............................................................................................................... 24
2. Emissions from Electricity Production ............................................................................................... 28
Rate of electricity production growth ................................................................................................. 28
Sources of Electricity .......................................................................................................................... 30
3. Electric Vehicles – Amount of Electricity Used ................................................................................. 30
4. Electric Vehicle Emissions ................................................................................................................. 32
5. Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles ..................................................................................................... 32
6. Comparison of Emissions from Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles ......................................... 34
Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................................................... 34
Nitrogen Oxides .................................................................................................................................. 38
Sulfur Dioxide ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 44
Page |3
Table of Figures
Figure 1 - U.S. Petroleum Trends1 ................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 2 - OPEC Oil Reserves7 ..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 - Gasoline Prices in 201011 ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 4 - Gasoline Price in the U.S. 2000-201111........................................................................................ 9
Figure 5 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector17 ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 6 - Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Sector19 ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 7 - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Sector21 ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 8- Sources of Electricity in the U.S.45.............................................................................................. 22
Figure 9 - Sources of Electricity in Indiana46.............................................................................................. 23
Figure 10 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road ................................................................................ 27
Figure 11- Electricity Generation in Indiana46 ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 12 - Electricity Generation from Coal in Indiana46.......................................................................... 29
Figure 13 - Electricity Generation from Natural Gas in Indiana46 .............................................................. 29
Figure 14 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1) ............................................................................... 35
Figure 15 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2) ............................................................................... 36
Figure 16 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3) ............................................................................... 36
Figure 17 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4) ............................................................................... 36
Figure 18 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5) ............................................................................... 37
Figure 19 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 1) .............................................................................. 38
Figure 20 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 2) .............................................................................. 39
Figure 21 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 3) .............................................................................. 39
Figure 22 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 4) .............................................................................. 39
Figure 23 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 5) .............................................................................. 40
Figure 24 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1) ................................................................................. 41
Figure 25 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2) ................................................................................. 41
Figure 26 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3) ................................................................................. 41
Figure 27 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4) ................................................................................. 42
Figure 28 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5) ................................................................................. 42
Page |4
Introduction
Despite the fact that many people are familiar with the negative effects associated with
the use of gasoline such as, air pollution, fluctuating costs, and reliance on foreign oil, it is still
the most commonly used transportation fuel in the United States.
In an attempt to mitigate some of the issues created by gasoline use, the U.S. government
has made efforts to transition away from gasoline by promoting various alternative fuels. Until
recently, the biologically-derived fuel, ethanol, was the primary alternative fuel promoted by the
U.S. government. Now, electric cars are considered to be a realistic alternative to gasoline
powered vehicles. Americans are becoming more interested in electric cars. They have already
been exposed to vehicles that use electricity as a means of propulsion in the form of hybrid
vehicles, such as the well-known Toyota Prius. The increased interest in electric vehicles is due
largely to rising gasoline prices, increasing concerns about the environment, and the introduction
of new electric cars that have overcome the problems of limited range and poor performance.
Although very few electric cars are currently available to consumers in the United States,
projections show that in the near future it is likely that many electric vehicles will be offered by a
wide variety of manufacturers, from traditional automakers such as General Motors to relatively
small and new companies such as Tesla Motors.
Although electric cars have many advantages over conventionally powered vehicles, they
may present unique environmental problems. Although electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe
emissions like conventionally powered vehicles, they still contribute to air pollution through the
use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s batteries. The amount of pollution that electric
cars produce is, therefore, directly tied to the source of electricity that charges the vehicle’s
batteries. In the state of Indiana, where electricity comes predominately from coal-fired power
plants, electric cars may contribute to greater air pollution through their use of coal-derived
electricity than comparable vehicles using gasoline would.
If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will generate more pollution than gasolinepowered vehicles, then policies that either bring about a change in the state’s electricity
generation profile, or that limit the number of electric cars that may be sold in the state should be
considered. If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will produce less pollution than gasoline
powered vehicles, then policies that encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles should be
considered.
Page |5
Problem
U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil
Americans are extremely reliant on gasoline as a relatively inexpensive source of
transportation fuel in order to maintain their way of life. The United States is the world’s largest
consumer of oil, using approximately 19.1 million barrels per day, which was approximately 20%
of the world’s oil supply in 2010.1 The U.S. is heavily reliant on foreign sources of oil, importing
11.8 million barrels of oil per day and exporting only 2.3 million barrels per day in 2010.1 The
demand for oil in the U.S. has been increasing since the late 1940’s. During the early 1950’s,
increasing demand and decreasing oil production forced the United States to import greater
amounts of petroleum.2,3 In 1970, the production of oil in the U.S. peaked, reaching a maximum
of 11 million barrels (equivalent to 426 million gallons) of oil per day. The decrease in oil
production in the U.S. has further increased the need to import foreign oil.3
Although many people believe that the U.S. is dependent solely on foreign oil from
highly volatile regions, such as the Middle East, almost half of the U.S.’s petroleum imports
come from the western hemisphere, from countries such as Canada and Mexico.1 In fact, Canada
and Mexico account for 34% of the U.S.’s net imports.1 The U.S. has become less dependent on
foreign oil in recent years, decreasing net imports from a high of 60% in 2005 to 45% net
imports in 2011.4 The U.S.’s prodigious appetite for oil does come at a price, costing
approximately $180 billion per year.3
To make matters worse, some experts believe that the world will reach peak oil
production before 2030.5 This would have a significant impact on the world economy, especially
since the demand for oil in developing countries such as China and India are projected to
increase greatly. Although reaching peak oil does not mean that oil and gasoline will no longer
be available to consumers, the price of all oil products would increase, eventually to a point
where many consumers would not be able to purchase it. However, many of these estimates rely
on the world’s proven reserves, which are constantly increasing due to new discoveries of oil and
new technologies capable of extracting oil from previously unreachable or economically
infeasible locations, such as the oil sands of Canada.
Page |6
Figure 1 - U.S. Petroleum Trends
1
Global Security
OPEC
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a global organization that
has a significant impact on both the amount and price of oil and gasoline worldwide. According
to some estimates, OPEC member countries control approximately two-thirds of the world’s oil
supplies.6 According to OPEC, more than 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves are located in
OPEC member countries, 65% of which is located in the Middle East.7 OPEC was formed in
1960, by five countries: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.8 Currently, OPEC has
12 member countries (the founding five members of OPEC are still member countries). The
OPEC member countries listed in order by the amount of their proven crude oil supplies are:
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar,
Algeria, Angola, and Ecuador.7
Page |7
7
Figure 2 - OPEC Oil Reserves
OPEC’s dominance over the worldwide oil market has cost the U.S. greatly; according to
the U.S. Department of Energy, price manipulation by OPEC member states has cost the United
States almost two trillion dollars from 2004 to 2008.9 There have been numerous oil price spikes
in the United States since 1970. Two major oil crises that occurred in the 1970’s, one in 1973
and the other in 1979, were caused by the actions of OPEC member countries.6 The first major
oil price spike occurred in 1973 due to OPEC’s oil embargo in response to some countries (the
U.S. included) involvement in the Yom Kippur War. The oil embargo directly affected the U.S.,
Japan, and parts of Europe and lasted 5 months. Due to the oil embargo, the price of oil
quadrupled in the United States and, although the embargo lasted for only 5 months, oil
remained at an increased price for significantly longer. In response to this oil embargo, the
United States, and many countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) developed reserves of crude oil that could be used to counteract shortterm supply disruptions and price spikes.10 The U.S.’s strategic petroleum reserve is the world’s
largest, with a capacity of 727 million barrels.
The second major oil price spike occurred in 1979, and carried over into 1980.9 This
price spike was due to the Iranian revolution. Before the revolution, Iran was one of the world’s
largest suppliers of oil, but during, and after, the Iranian revolution the supply of crude oil
exported from Iran decreased dramatically. Iranian oil production dropped from approximately 6
million barrels per day in 1978, to less than 1 million barrels per day by October 1980. In 1978,
Page |8
Iran supplied nearly 10% of the world’s oil, and although many countries increased their oil
supply due to the decrease in Iranian supply, the world’s oil production decreased by 4%. This
significant decrease in supply caused oil prices to nearly triple by the beginning of 1981.
The most recent oil price spike was more gradual than the spikes in the 1970’s, occurring
from September 2003 and finally peaking in July 2008. This price spike was more severe than
either of the spikes in the 1970’s, representing an almost five-fold increase in crude oil prices.
This price spike was not due to a major supply disruption or OPEC intervention, but rather a
number of factors, including: increased growth of oil demand, low investment in the 1990s,
refinery capacities that were not easily increased, geopolitical concerns and the relatively weak
state of the U.S. currency.9
The oil price spikes in 1973 and 1979 were followed by a global recession. The 20032008 gasoline price spike also led to a global recession, however, the most recent price spike
occurred during the worst economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression.
Although many factors contributed to the recession in the U.S., including the housing crisis and
various financial problems, the increasing cost of oil likely played a significant role.9 This is
because the price of oil not only affects the personal transportation sector, but every sector of the
economy. Nearly all transportation is achieved by using products originating from oil, therefore
the price of any good or service that requires some method of transportation will likely be
influenced by the price of oil.
Gasoline Prices
Figure 4 shows the increasing cost of gasoline from 2003 until late 2008, when the price
began to decrease.11 The price dropped dramatically until late 2009 when it began to increase at a
rate similar to the increasing rate during the years 2003-2008. Figure 3 shows the price of
gasoline in 2010 and demonstrates that the price of gasoline is highly volatile. The high
variability in the price of gasoline influences the prices of many goods and services and can
make it difficult for both consumers and producers to predict future prices.
Page |9
11
Figure 4 - Gasoline Price in the U.S. 2000-2011
Figure 3 - Gasoline Prices in 2010
11
Iran and the Strait of Hormuz
Currently, Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons and many countries, including
the United States, are vehemently opposed to this.12 Many foreign policy and military experts
believe that military intervention is necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,
but many of these experts do not believe that simple tactical bombing strategy can reduce Iran’s
nuclear production capabilities to the point where it is no longer feasible to construct nuclear
weapons. Iran has responded to these threats of military intervention by threatening to close the
Strait of Hormuz.13,14 The Strait of Hormuz is the primary access point to the Persian Gulf, which
is where approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply travels through daily. Certainly, a
disruption of 20% of the world’s supply would result in drastic price increases.13 According to
some experts, if the United States took military action against Iran, and even if Iran did not
threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, increased speculation in the world oil market could
greatly increase the price of oil, which could cause a worldwide economic crisis.
P a g e | 10
Pollution
The combustion of gasoline results in many kinds of air pollutants. Although the
emissions from an individual car are generally low, the personal vehicle is the single greatest
source of air pollution in many locations in the U.S., especially in large cities.15 According to the
EPA, driving a personal vehicle is probably a typical person’s most polluting daily activity. This
paper considers three airborne pollutants: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.
The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set
standards, referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for pollutants
that are harmful to human health and the environment.16 The EPA has set NAAQS for six
pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are: 1) Carbon monoxide 2)
Lead 3) Nitrogen dioxide 4) Ozone 5) Particle pollutants and 6) Sulfur dioxide. Two of the three
pollutants considered in this paper (nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide) are criteria air pollutants
under the NAAQS, while the other pollutant, carbon dioxide, is not.
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas, and although it is generally considered to
be harmless to human health, it is the largest contributor to global climate change.3 Because
carbon dioxide is not considered to be directly harmful to human health, it is not regulated by
NAAQS or any other kind of government regulation in the United States. Although the
increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in negative environmental
effects through climate change, there have been few successful efforts in the U.S. or worldwide
to decrease the production of CO 2 .3
Most anthropogenic carbon dioxide is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. In fact,
since the beginning of widespread fossil fuel use during the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s,
carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 35%.17 As Figure 5
demonstrates, the transportation sector is the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions
in the United States. Personal vehicles account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the
transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990.
P a g e | 11
Figure 5 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector
17
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen oxides are a group of highly reactive gases that include a number of different
chemical compounds of oxygen and nitrogen, but primarily refer to the compounds, nitric oxide
(NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ).18 These two compounds are collectively referred to as NO x .
As a criteria air pollutant, nitrogen oxides levels have been monitored and regulated by the EPA
since 1971. According to the EPA, all areas in the U.S. currently meet the NAAQ standards for
nitrogen oxides. Like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Exposures to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause adverse health effects in people;
short-term exposure can cause airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory
symptoms in people with asthma.18 After being emitted, nitrogen oxides can react with many
other compounds in the atmosphere to create harmful pollutants.3,18 For example, nitrogen oxides
can combine with a number of compounds to form small particles. These small particles can
harm human health by damaging the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as
emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease. Another criteria air
pollutant under NAAQS, ozone, is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds
react in the atmosphere with heat and sunlight.18 Ozone exposure in at-risk individuals can cause
respiratory issues.
Nitrogen oxides can enter the atmosphere and react with water vapor to create nitric acid,
which is a major contributor to acid rain. Acid rain causes significant damage to both the
P a g e | 12
environment and human structures, such as acidification of lakes and streams, and damage to
trees.
The transportation sector is a large contributor to nitrogen oxides emissions. Figure 6
demonstrates that, in Indiana, the largest source of nitrogen oxides emissions is electricity
generation. The second largest source of nitrogen oxides emissions in Indiana is from mobile
sources, which includes all vehicles used for transportation.19
Figure 6 - Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Sector
19
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) is a colorless and corrosive gas with a pungent odor that is created
from the combustion of fossil fuels.3 As a criteria air pollutant, SO 2 levels have been monitored
and regulated by the EPA since 1971.20 According to the EPA, there are no locations in the
United States that do not meet the current SO 2 NAAQ standards. Unlike carbon dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
Sulfur dioxide can have many negative effects on human health, the environment, and
various materials.3,20 Like nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide can react with other compounds in the
atmosphere to form small particles. These small particles can harm human health by damaging
the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and
can aggravate existing heart disease. Also like nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide can enter the
atmosphere and react with water vapor to create sulfuric acid, which is a major contributor to
P a g e | 13
acid rain. Acid rain causes significant damage to both the environment and human structures,
such as acidification of lakes and streams, and damage to trees.
Figure 7 shows that, in Indiana, the largest source of sulfur dioxide emissions is
electricity generation.21 The second largest source of sulfur dioxide in Indiana is from industrial
processes. The third major source of sulfur dioxide is mobile sources, which includes all vehicles
used for transportation. Unlike carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are emitted in large
amounts by the transportation sector, sulfur dioxide is not emitted in large amounts by the
transportation sector. The reason for this is that there is very little sulfur naturally occurring
within gasoline compared to other fossil fuels.22 The EPA’s Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur Program
reduces the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90% percent, so before gasoline is combusted,
most of the sulfur has already been removed.23
Figure 7 - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Sector
21
P a g e | 14
Solutions
There have been a number of potential alternatives to gasoline proposed in the United
States and the world, including: electric vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, natural gas,
compressed air, and many others. Until recently, the primary alternative transportation fuel in the
U.S. was biofuels. After attempting to transition to biofuels, the U.S. and many other countries
have begun to attempt to switch to different sources of energy, such as electricity. Government
policy has a great deal of influence on what fuel source is used; this is apparent from the current
production levels of biofuels.
Politicians
The knowledge of the United States’ dependence on foreign oil has influenced many
politicians, from across the political spectrum, to proclaim that the U.S. should decrease its
dependence on foreign oil. In 1974, President Nixon promised that energy independence would
be reached within 6 years, in 1975, President Ford promised energy independence in 10 years
and in 1977, President Carter warned Americans that the world’s oil supply would begin running
out within the next ten years. President Carter went as far as to exclaim that the energy crisis that
was affecting America at the time was the “Moral equivalent of war.”2
Not much has changed since the 1970’s; the U.S. still heavily relies on petroleum imports
for use as a transportation fuel. Also, politicians are still extolling the benefits of energy
independence and warning of the consequences of continued dependence. For example,
President Barack Obama declared in 2007 that “Now is the time for serious leadership to get us
started down the path to energy independence”; in the same year, Presidential hopeful, Hillary
Clinton, said that the U.S. should be “Energy independent and free from foreign oil.”2 The
presidential hopefuls for the Republican Party shared many of the same beliefs and hopes as the
Democratic Party. For example, in 2007, Arizona Senator John McCain said that “We need
energy independence”; also in 2007, Rudolph Giuliani said that the federal government “Must
treat energy independence as a matter of national security.”2 Similar rhetoric has been applied to
the issue of foreign oil in the 2012 Presidential race. For example, President Obama, who is
running for reelection, stated in his 2012 State of the Union Address that there is a need for an
“All-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,”
which included an increase in allowed offshore drilling and tapping of natural gas resources.24
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee for President, has stated that he supports ethanol
P a g e | 15
production as an alternative transportation energy source, and that “A Romney administration
will pave the way for the construction of additional pipelines that can accommodate the expected
growth in Canadian supply of oil and natural gas in the coming years.”24 Similarly to Mitt
Romney, most of the other possible Republican nominees stated their support for increased oil
trade with Canada and the need for increased infrastructure to transport Canadian crude oil to the
U.S. where it could be refined.
Governmental policies have been put in place to reduce the amount of petroleum used in
the transportation sector, including mandates and incentives to reduce vehicle fuel consumption,
such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard, which requires automakers to meet
efficiency goals.3 Although government regulation has been somewhat successful at improving
the average fuel efficiency in the U.S., the total amount of fuel used nationally has steadily
increased.3,11
Biofuels
Although biologically-derived fuels (commonly referred to as biofuels) have been
available since the invention of the internal combustion engine, the United States has recently
increased its efforts to encourage ethanol use as an alternative transportation fuel to gasoline.4 In
the United States, almost all of the biofuels used and produced originate from corn-based ethanol.
The domestic supply of ethanol in the United States was 10.8 billion gallons in 2009; a 220%
increase over the domestic supply of 4.9 billion gallons in 2006.25 The United States does import
a small amount of ethanol, 0.2 billion gallons, which accounts for 1.85% of the total ethanol
supply.25 Ethanol is mixed into regular gasoline, accounting for up to 10% of the fuel available at
gas stations by volume. This is because vehicles require no modifications in order to combust a
10% ethanol mix. After modifications, a vehicle can use higher percentages of ethanol, then
being considered a flex-fuel vehicle, the most common being 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, a
mix commonly referred to as E85.26
The driving force behind the production and use of biofuels in the United States is the
Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates that renewable fuel be mixed into gasoline.
The RFS is handled by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2006, it mandated that 4.0
billion gallons of renewable fuel be added to gasoline, 9.0 billion gallons in 2008, and, by 2022,
36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be added to gasoline.2,27 The RFS was established by the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, §1501 and was expanded by the Energy Independence and Security
P a g e | 16
Act of 2007, §202. The RFS mandates that by 2022, more than 21 billion of the 36 billion
gallons of biofuel required must originate from a non-food source feedstock.27
Corn-based ethanol presents many problems as an alternative to gasoline. Although cornbased ethanol is ubiquitous across the U.S., it is not cost-effective when compared to
conventional fuels such as gasoline. The price that people pay at the pump for ethanol is not the
entirety of what they are paying. Between 1995 and 2005 the total for federal corn subsidies
reached $51.3 billion.28 In 2005 corn subsidies reached $9.4 billion.29 In 2010, the Congressional
Budget Office concluded that displacing one gallon of gasoline with corn-based ethanol cost
taxpayers $1.78.25
Another significant problem with the majority of biofuels in the U.S. is that potential
food is being used to power vehicles. Using a possible food source as fuel poses many ethical
questions. According to the Earth Policy Institute, the amount of grain needed to make enough
ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank would feed one person for a full year.2 Ethanol production
does use a significant amount of potential food; in 2010 approximately 40% of the corn crop was
used as a feedstock for ethanol.25 Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Rural
Development found that between July 2006 and May 2007, when only approximately 20% of the
corn crop was being used for an ethanol feedstock, the food bill for Americans increased by an
average of $47 due to the rising price of corn.2 Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural
Rural Development also found that ethanol production resulted in higher prices for cheese, ice
cream, eggs, poultry, pork, cereal, sugar, and beef.30 The European Parliament has recognized
that biofuels are currently competing with food and they have agreed that biofuels are likely
causing food prices to rise. European governments have pledged that by 2015 they will have at
least 5% of their transportation fuels to be derived from biofuels that do not compete with food.2
There are many reasons for the current failure of biofuels. Most of the problems that
plague biofuels have to do with net energy balance. Net energy balance is a comparison of the
amount of energy inputs and the energy outputs of a fuel.31 Biofuels are very inefficient in terms
of how much energy is gained compared to how much energy is put in to its production. There
are numerous studies that claim that biofuels have a wide range of efficiencies, but the fact
remains that, in even the most optimistic of studies, biofuels cannot match the efficiency of
conventional fuels like gasoline. Gasoline yields energy profits of about 600 to 700 percent.2 If
the gasoline is produced from oil that is easily extracted from the earth and does not require
P a g e | 17
much refining, then the energy profit can be substantially higher, up to 2,000 percent. David
Pinentel, a professor from Cornell University, and Tad Patzek, a professor at the University of
California Berkeley, co-wrote a report in 2005 that found that corn-based ethanol production
results in a net energy loss of 29%, meaning that ethanol produces 29% less energy than required
to produce it.28 A study conducted by Oregon State University found that ethanol’s net energy
gain was 20.3%, even though there was a net energy gain, the researchers concluded that cornbased ethanol was “significantly more costly that gasoline.”2
Electric Vehicles
Much like vehicles powered by ethanol, vehicles powered by electric motors are not a
new technology. In fact, unlike today, where electric cars remain somewhat of a novelty, in 1900,
28% of all cars in the United States were powered by electricity.32 After the 1920’s, the
popularity of electric cars declined drastically due to many factors, primarily due to the limited
range of electric vehicles and the increasing availability and decreasing price of gasoline.33
Recently Americans have become increasingly interested in electric cars and hybrid-electric
vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius. This is due to a number of factors including: high gasoline
prices, increasing concern about the environment, and new electric cars that break the common
stereotypes associated with electric cars, such as limited range and poor performance. Despite
this interest, very few electric cars, offered by very few manufacturers, are currently available to
Americans.
Electric vehicles can be separated and classified under two distinct categories, fully
electric vehicles (FEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Fully electric vehicles are
fairly simple. FEVs use a number of batteries which supply electrical power to a motor which
drives the vehicle’s wheels. The second category of electric vehicle, the PHEV, is similar to
conventional hybrid vehicles (HEVs) in that both types of vehicles incorporate both an electric
motor and an internal combustion engine for powering the vehicle. The primary difference
between PHEVs and HEVs is that PHEVs use onboard batteries to power the vehicle for a
certain distance (generally close to 30 miles) and once the battery is depleted, an onboard
internal combustion engine provides power to the electric motor through an onboard electric
generator. This means that, in a PHEV, the internal combustion engine is not directly attached to
the vehicles drive-train, while in a HEV, the primary means of propulsion is met with a relatively
small internal combustion engine that is coupled with an electric motor that provides additional
P a g e | 18
horsepower when the driver needs it. Therefore, PHEVs are not simply more efficient versions of
conventional fossil fuel powered vehicles, like HEVs are.34
There are currently a small number of electric vehicles available to consumers in the
United States. Some of these vehicles are competitively priced with conventional vehicles and
others are extravagantly expensive supercars that can compete with the fastest conventionally
powered vehicles.
One of the most exciting recent developments in electric vehicles was the release of the
Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, developed by General Motors. The Volt, as a
PHEV, uses onboard batteries to power the vehicle for a certain distance and once the battery is
depleted, an onboard gasoline powered 3-cylinder engine provides power to the electric motors,
which extends the driving range indefinitely, and also allows the Volt to refuel quickly using
gasoline instead of forcing the driver to wait for the onboard batteries to be recharged.35
According to GM, the Volt can drive 600 miles or more before needing refueling or recharging
and the batteries store enough energy to drive for approximately 35 miles while in fully-electric
mode. The fact that the Volt’s driving range is not limited makes it a reasonable alternative to
gasoline vehicles for drivers who are concerned about the range of their vehicle. To reduce
gasoline consumption, drivers plug the Volt into a standard 110-volt electrical outlet to recharge
the batteries, which takes approximately six hours. The Volt is competitive with similar gasoline
powered cars in terms of performance, accelerating from 0 to 60 in less than 8.5 seconds.
According to Chevrolet, “The Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of
America's daily commuters without a single drop of gas. That means for someone who drives
less than 40 miles a day, the Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.” The
Volt has a MRSP of approximately $40,000. Although the Volt is substantially cheaper to
operate than a gasoline powered vehicle, it has not been selling well. In fact, General Motors
temporarily halted production of the Volt on March 16, 2012.36 Chevrolet is expected to resume
production on April 23, 2012. The halted production is due primarily because demand for the
Volt has been lower than General Motors (GM) predicted, selling only 1,023 Volts in February,
while having approximately 3,600 unsold Volts. GM predicted that 10,000 Volts would be sold
in 2011, while a total of only 7,671 were sold.37
Another electric vehicle that is currently available in the United States is the fully electric
Nissan Leaf. Unlike the PHEV Volt, the FEV Leaf uses only electricity as an energy source.38
P a g e | 19
This allows the Leaf to operate more efficiently, primarily due to a lower weight because the
Leaf does not have an onboard internal combustion engine or any of the related components. The
Leaf has a MSRP of approximately $35,000. Unlike the Volt, the Leaf has a limited driving
range of between 70 and 100 miles before the batteries need to be recharged. Nissan sold 9,674
Leafs in North America in 2011, which is similar to the number of Volts sold in the U.S. in
2011.37
Two electric vehicles that go against the commonly held perception that EVs are
generally slow and have poor performance are the fully electric Tesla Roadster and the soon to
be available, Jaguar C-X75. These two vehicles can accurately be described as “supercars,” by
having performance characteristics similar to the highest-priced sports cars on the market today.
The Tesla Roadster is a FEV that has a range of approximately 245 miles, and can accelerate
from 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds.39 The Roadster has an MSRP of $100,000. The Jaguar C-X75
is a PHEV that has a fully-electric range of approximately 30 miles and an essentially unlimited
range when using its onboard internal combustion engines. The C-X75’s four electric motors
generate 780 brake horsepower, helping the vehicle accelerate from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds.40
There are a number of electric vehicles that experts believe will become available for sale
in the United States. Some companies that are expected to release EVs within the next two years
are: Audi (R8, a FEV), BMW (ActiveE, a FEV), Cadillac (ELR, a PHEV), Fiat (500 EV, a FEV),
Fisker (Karma, a PHEV), Ford (Focus, a FEV), Honda (Fit and Accord, a FEV and PHEV
respectively), Infiniti (LE, a PHEV), Mercedes-Benz (SLS E-cell, a FEV), Mitsubishi (“i”, a
FEV), Tesla (S, a FEV), and Toyota (Prius V, a PHEV).33,41 Many of these vehicles are very
expensive and can be considered luxury cars, but some, including the Tesla S, Fiat 500 EV,
Mitsubishi “i”, and Toyota Prius V, are priced similarly to average conventionally powered cars.
The current consumer-focused government policies designed to increase the sales of
electric cars are primarily financial incentives to the consumer offset the higher purchase price of
EVs. The Recovery Act modified the tax credit for qualified EVs purchased after Dec. 31,
2009.41,42 The minimum amount of the credit for qualified EVs is $2,500, and the credit tops out
at $7,500, depending on the battery capacity. The $7,500 tax credit is substantial, but considering
the cost of electric cars (approximately $40,000 for a Chevrolet Volt, $35,000 for the Nissan
Leaf, and over $100,000 for the Tesla Roadster) the credit does not bring the initial cost down to
a level competitive with conventionally powered vehicles. Some government officials have
P a g e | 20
realized this. For example, President Obama has recommended that the current $7,500 tax credit
for purchasing an EV be converted into a rebate, which would make the discount apply
immediately.42
Although electric vehicles are generally more expensive than gasoline powered vehicles,
they are much less expensive to operate. A driver of a PHEV, like the Chevrolet Volt, can be
expected to pay less than half the price for fuel than a driver of a gasoline vehicle which has a
fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon.43 A driver of a fully electric vehicle, like the Nissan Leaf,
can be expected to pay less than one-third of the price for fuel than a driver of a gasoline vehicle
which has a fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon. Fully electric vehicles are generally cheaper to
operate than PHEVs because FEVs are smaller and weight less because they do not have to have
an onboard internal combustion engine. Despite the operating cost advantages that EVs have
over gasoline powered vehicle, inexpensive and fuel efficient vehicles like the Chevrolet Cruze
can decrease the demand for electric vehicles. This is because vehicles like the Cruze Eco can
achieve 42 miles per gallon on the highway, while having an MSRP of as low as $17,000.44
Vehicles like this drastically increase the payback period on vehicles like the Volt and the Leaf,
due to the large initial investment required for EVs.
Table 1 below displays the operating costs of gasoline vehicles under a number of cost
and fuel efficiency scenarios. Table 2 displays the cost of operating EVs, both a PHEV
(Chevrolet Volt) and a FEV (Nissan Leaf). The resulting cost per year assumes a driving distance
of approximately 17,000 miles per year.
P a g e | 21
Table 1 - Cost of Operating Gasoline Vehicle
Table 2 - Cost of Operating Electric Vehicle
43
P a g e | 22
Electricity Sources
Although electric vehicles do not emit pollution directly like vehicles powered by
gasoline, so called “zero tailpipe emissions,” they are not truly “zero emissions vehicles.” EVs
contribute to pollution indirectly through the use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s
batteries. Therefore, the amount of pollution generated (albeit indirectly) by EVs is inexorably
tied to the source of the electricity used to charge the EV’s batteries.
On the national level, the United States has a diverse mix of electricity generating sources,
including sources that do not create emissions while generating electricity, such as nuclear and
hydroelectric.45 In fact, over 28% of the energy produced in the U.S. did not create emissions at
the electricity generation facility; however, these sources of electricity contribute to emissions
production indirectly. For example, wind and photovoltaic energy create emissions through the
production of the wind turbines and photovoltaic panels, and nuclear power contributes to
emissions through the mining and refining practices in order to create fissionable uranium.
Additionally, only 45% of the U.S.’s energy was derived from coal in 2010. Figure 8 shows the
sources of electricity in the U.S. in 2010.
45
Figure 8- Sources of Electricity in the U.S.
Unlike the United States on a national level, Indiana does not have a diverse mix of
electricity generating sources.46 Almost all of the electricity (over 96% in 2010) generated in
Indiana is generated by combusting coal. Indiana’s reliance on coal as its primary source of
electricity creates issues due to the amount of emissions that the combustion of coal creates.
P a g e | 23
Compared to natural gas, coal generated electricity emitted (in 2010) 2.2 times more carbon
dioxide, 1,903 times more sulfur dioxide, and 4.56 times more nitrogen oxides per unit of energy
created, in Indiana (see Table 3). Compared to other sources of electricity generation, such as
nuclear or wind power, the emissions from coal are even more severe. The chart below shows the
amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides created by both coal and natural
gas for various levels of electricity output. Figure 9 shows the sources of electricity in Indiana in
2010.
Figure 9 - Sources of Electricity in Indiana
46
Table 3 - Emissions from Coal and Natural Gas
46
P a g e | 24
Electric Vehicle Pollution
In order to determine if electric vehicles will produce less pollution than the gasoline
vehicles that they are replacing in the state of Indiana, a number of steps, each incorporating a
number of estimations and predictions, need to be completed. The steps used in this analysis
were as follows:
1. Estimate the number of electric vehicles on the road in each year.
2. Estimate the emissions resulting from electricity production under a number of plausible
scenarios.
3. Estimate the demand for electricity due to electric vehicles operating in each year.
4. Estimate the emissions that result from the electricity used to power electric vehicles in
each year.
5. Estimate the total amount of emissions created by gasoline vehicles in each year.
6. Calculate the amount of emissions that are mitigated by the reduction in size of the
gasoline vehicle fleet (which are replaced by electric vehicles).
7. Compare the emissions values for the replaced gasoline vehicles and the emissions
resulting from the electric vehicles.
1. Number of Electric Vehicles
In order to establish an estimate for the number of electric vehicles on the road every year
from the current year (2012) to the year 2030, the Bass model of technology adoption was used.
The Bass model, developed in 1969, is used to predict the adoption of new technology, from
computers to kitchen appliances.47,49 The Bass model uses three inputs to forecast the annual
number of adopters of a new technology. The three inputs are: the maximum number of potential
adopters of a new technology, the positive feedback associated with exposure to the technology
through those who have already adopted the technology, and the external sources of technology
adoption such as advertising. The Bass model is well suited for estimating the number of electric
vehicles in the future because it works well for products that have not begun to be produced, or
produced at a high capacity. Another advantage of the Bass model is that it overcomes the
startup problem of the logistic innovation diffusion model because the adoption rate due to
advertising efforts is not dependant on the current number of adopters.
P a g e | 25
The first input that must be determined is the number of potential adopters.47,48 This value
can be difficult to determine because electric vehicles are not widespread enough to definitively
establish how receptive the population of Indiana will be towards them. Many factors can
influence the number of potential adopters, such as: the price of gasoline, the public’s concern
over environmental pollution, the number of miles driven daily, brand loyalty, the price of
electricity, etc.33 Under a scenario where the price of gasoline does not increase dramatically and
the inclusion of PHEVs (which reduce the public’s concern over driving range) the maximum
market penetration in the year 2030 can be estimated to be approximately 70%.47 This means that
by the year 2030, 70% of vehicle owners in Indiana will be willing to purchase an EV.
In order to estimate the total number of passenger vehicles in the year 2030, a simple
linear regression analysis of the data (from the years 1980 to 2011) for the number of passenger
vehicles in the state of Indiana and the population of Indiana was conducted. The following
equation was then established.50,51
•
Number of Passenger Vehicles = ((Population) x (0.8642425)) - (1,677,587)
The resulting R2 value of 0.9914 demonstrates that, given the data, the total population of
Indiana is a strong predictor of the number of passenger vehicles in Indiana. Using the predicted
value for the state population in the year 2030, the number of passenger vehicles in the year 2030
can be estimated. According to Indiana University’s STATS Indiana population projection, the
total population of the state of Indiana in 2030 is estimated to be slightly over 7 million people
(7,018,710).50 This is an increase of 8.25% in the population of Indiana compared to 2010. This
increase in population will likely result in an increase in both the number of passenger vehicles
and number of miles driven within the state, because, according to the Energy Information
Administration, population growth is one of the primary drivers of growth in both the number of
miles driven and the amount of gasoline consumed by passenger vehicles.52 The total number of
passenger vehicles in 2030 can be estimated by the following equation:
•
(Number of passenger vehicles) = ((7,018,710 people) x (0.8642425)) + (-1,677,587)
= 4,388,280 passenger vehicles in Indiana in 2030
P a g e | 26
The second input that must be determined is the coefficient of innovation.47,48 This
coefficient incorporates the adopters who purchase an EV due to external influences, without the
influence of other adopters; they may be influenced by advertisements and marketing by the
suppliers of EVs. These consumers may purchase EVs due to a number of reasons, but, by
definition, they are not influenced by other adopters. The first adopters must purchase an EV due
to external factors, because there is no potential for positive feedback from previous adopters.
Historically, the coefficient of innovation for most goods is between 0.01 and 0.03.49 For this
estimate, a value of 0.01 was used, which is low, due to the current relative ineffectiveness of
advertising for EVs such as the Chevrolet Volt.36,37
The third input that must be determined is the coefficient of imitation.47,48 This
coefficient incorporates the adopters who purchase an EV due to interactions with previous
adopters. For example, if an individual’s friends, neighbors, co-workers, or other acquaintances
purchase an EV, then that person may then also purchase an EV. Historically, the coefficient of
imitation for most goods is between 0.3 and 0.7.49 For this estimate, a value of 0.3 was used,
which is low, due to consumers’ anticipated unwillingness to adopt quickly.36,37
Using the previous three inputs in the Bass model, and the year 2014 as the first year of
possible adoption, both the total number of electric vehicles and the number of new electric
vehicles per year can be estimated. Figure 10 below shows the distinctive “S” shaped curve of
the number of adoptions. The slow initial growth is due to the limited influence by the
coefficient of imitation and the relatively small influence of the coefficient of innovation. The
growth rate begins to increase when more initial adopters interact with potential adopters,
therefore making the coefficient of imitation relevant. The growth rate of the number of
technology adopters begins to slow when the number of total adopters approaches the number of
potential adopters. Table 4 below displays the results from the Bass model for the following
years: the first year of adoption (2014), 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, and the final year of adoption
considered (2030).
P a g e | 27
Figure 10 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road
Table 4 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road
Year
Total Number of
New EVs per
EVs Percentage of
Percent of Total
Adoptions
Year
Potential Adopters
Vehicles EVs
1.00%
0.68%
6.03%
4.12%
16.00%
10.94%
33.20%
22.70%
56.36%
38.53%
83.24%
56.90%
2014
30,000.00
30,000.00
2017
180,873.40
62,837.23
2020
479,866.54
121,158.24
2023
996,138.79
197,785.64
2026
1,690,804.32
240,249.97
2030
2,497,055.23
161,900.03
P a g e | 28
The results from this model of technology adoption are certainly optimistic, especially
when the current sales of EVs are currently so low nationally. However, in a report released by
the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resource Defense Council, it was
estimated that PHEVs could account for, as high as, 80% of the new vehicle market share in
2050.53 The report also stated that EVs could make up over 60% of the light-vehicles in the
United States by the year 2030. The estimated number of electric vehicles sold per year may be
high due to consumers’ unwillingness to purchase, but the number of EVs sold is reasonable
considering the number of vehicles historically sold in Indiana. In 2007, over 250,000 vehicles
were sold in Indiana, and in 2010, over 177,000 vehicles were sold.54 The estimates gained from
the Bass model predict no more EVs sold in Indiana in any year (even during the peak sales
years) than conventional vehicles sold in 2007.
2. Emissions from Electricity Production
Rate of electricity production growth
From the year 1990 to 2010, electric utility electricity generation increased by an average
of 0.554% per year in Indiana.46 There is some variation in terms of the percentage growth each
year, with some years having negative growth rates, but the general trend has been that of
increasing generation. The one major exception to this trend of growth is the electricity
generation during the year 2009, which fell by 10.608%. This major decrease in electricity
generation is likely due to the worldwide recession that was taking place during that year.55 If the
decrease in generation for the year 2009 is omitted from the average electricity generation for the
past 20 years, the average rate of growth would be 1.084% per year. This demonstrates that a
significant economic disturbance is able to drastically influence the amount of electricity
generated.
Figure 11 below shows the generally stable and increasing trend of electricity generation
in Indiana. As discussed above, a major reduction in electricity generation occurred in 2009,
which can be seen on this graph. Figure 12 shows that most electricity produced in Indiana
originates from coal.46 Because of this, the amount of electricity produced by combusting coal is
very similar to the total amount of electricity produced by all sources. Figure 13 shows that,
although most electricity generation in Indiana originates from coal, the use of natural gas has
increased dramatically in Indiana. This is due, in part, to the decreasing cost of natural gas. The
rapid increase in the use of natural gas in 2009 and 2010 demonstrate that natural gas may
P a g e | 29
become a major source of electricity in Indiana in the future, especially if the rate of growth
remains high.
46
Figure 11- Electricity Generation in Indiana
46
Figure 12 - Electricity Generation from Coal in Indiana
46
Figure 13 - Electricity Generation from Natural Gas in Indiana
P a g e | 30
Sources of Electricity
In order to estimate the fuel mix in a given year from the current year to 2030, 5 possible
scenarios were considered. The scenarios use an average growth rate of electricity generation of
0.554% per year. The average growth rate influences the rate at which the electricity generation
source mix can change. This means that if the 10.608% decrease in electricity generation for the
year 2009 was omitted, therefore resulting in an average growth rate of 1.084% per year, the
resulting electricity generation mix in a given year could be different depending on the scenario.
The scenarios are as follows:
1. The coal and natural gas mix remains constant, with 95.69% of generation originating
from coal and 3.51% of generation coming from natural gas each year.
2. The amount of natural gas used remains constant, while all new production originates
from coal. This scenario would yield a 96.86% coal and 3.14% natural gas mix by 2030.
3. The amount of coal used remains constant, while all new production originates from
natural gas. This scenario would yield an 85.75% coal and 14.25% natural gas mix by
2030.
4. The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is replaced with natural gas, while
all new production originates from natural gas. This scenario would yield a 70.13% coal
and 29.87% natural gas mix by 2030.
5. The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is replaced with natural gas, while
50% of new production originates from natural gas and 50% of new production originates
from wind power (or other non-polluting source of energy, such as solar energy). This
scenario would yield a 70.13% coal, 14.93% natural gas and 14.93% wind power mix by
2030.
3. Electric Vehicles – Amount of Electricity Used
In order to estimate the amount of electricity needed for electric vehicles, estimates using
current EVs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) were used (see section 5 “Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles” for
information about MOVES).
The EPA’s MOVES system was used to estimate the total number of miles driven by the
gasoline powered personal vehicle fleet (See Table 7).56 Using the estimates for the number of
EVs on the road in a given year from the Bass model, the number of miles driven by EVs can be
P a g e | 31
estimated. This analysis used a 1:1 mile replacement of gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles.
This means that if the average distance driven by a gasoline vehicle in a specific year was 15,000
miles, then an EV replacing the gasoline vehicle would drive 15,000 miles in that year. Table 6
shows the number of miles estimated to be driven by EVs in each year. Once the miles driven by
electric vehicles are estimated, the fuel efficiency of the EVs must be considered. In this analysis,
it is assumed that 50% of the EVs replacing gasoline vehicles are PHEVs with a fuel efficiency
similar to that of the Chevrolet Volt and the other 50% are FEVs with a fuel efficiency similar to
that of a Nissan Leaf. The Volt is less efficient (2.1875 miles per kWh) than the Nissan Leaf
(3.125 miles per kWh). Since the EV fleet is estimated to be an even mix of PHEVs and EVs, the
average fuel efficiency is projected to be approximately 2.656 miles per kWh.37,38
The next factor to consider is the charging efficiency of EVs. According to Tesla Motors,
the company’s high-efficiency battery charging unit charges at up to 90% efficiency.39 However,
current users of the Tesla Roadster, Chevrolet Volt, and Nissan Leaf report an efficiency of
approximately 80%, which is the average efficiency used for this analysis.37,38 The results for the
amount of electricity needed to power the EVs on the road in each year can be seen in Table 5
below.
Table 6 - Miles Driven by EVs
Table 5 - Electricity Demanded by EVs
Miles Driven by Evs
Electricity Needed to Charge Evs
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Miles Driven
457,117,587.46
1,062,419,658.73
1,866,164,705.00
2,918,448,214.28
4,280,640,335.19
6,021,172,817.87
8,210,952,118.38
10,940,413,469.98
14,244,579,220.15
18,137,920,986.37
22,582,079,258.18
27,473,169,673.34
32,587,453,759.32
37,748,325,499.48
42,730,846,525.88
47,343,074,397.57
51,458,391,780.64
Year
MWh
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
206,509.59
479,963.70
843,067.35
1,318,451.90
1,933,842.22
2,720,153.37
3,709,418.37
4,942,492.67
6,435,198.14
8,194,072.54
10,201,786.39
12,411,408.42
14,721,861.46
17,053,361.17
19,304,288.31
21,387,930.08
23,247,085.23
P a g e | 32
4. Electric Vehicle Emissions
After estimating the amount of electricity EVs will use in a given year, the amount of
pollution emitted due to the generation of that electricity can be estimated under the five
previously discussed scenarios. This analysis assumes that the emissions per unit of electricity
generated from both coal and natural gas remain constant. The overall emissions per unit of
electricity generation do change under all scenarios except for the first, where the percent of
energy coming from both natural gas and coal remains constant. The emissions from electric
vehicle use can be seen on the graphs in section number 6.
5. Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles
In order to estimate the amount of emissions from gasoline vehicles in the state of
Indiana per year, from the current year (2012) to the year 2030, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) was used.
The EPA’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) is a computer modeling
software that estimates emissions from vehicles.56 MOVES uses EPA’s estimates and analysis of
millions of emissions test results in order to estimate emissions for the user specified: 1) vehicle
types 2) time periods 3) geographical areas 4) pollutants 5) vehicle operating characteristics and
6) road types. The specification for the necessary inputs for the MOVES simulation for this
analysis were 1) all gasoline powered personal transportation vehicles (which includes lighttrucks) 2) a full-year estimate 3) the state of Indiana 4) carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide equivalent
(which is a way to estimate the relative impact of the total greenhouse gas emissions in terms of
the warming potential of carbon dioxide), nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, total
nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide 5) all operation of vehicles (including idling) and 6) all road
types.
The outputs for the years 2012, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 can be seen in Table 7 below.
Perhaps most importantly, the results show an increase in the number of miles driven, from
approximately 64 billion miles in 2012 to over 90 billion miles in 2030. Even with this increase
in miles driven, the amount of nitrogen oxide emissions is decreasing.
Table 8 shows that, although the amount of pollution per year is increasing for both sulfur
dioxide and carbon dioxide, the amount of emissions per mile is decreasing. For example, in
2012, vehicles, on average, are estimated to produce approximately 0.92 pounds of carbon
P a g e | 33
dioxide per year, while in 2030, vehicles, on average, are estimated to produce approximately
0.70 pounds of carbon dioxide per mile. A similar trend of decreasing emissions per mile can be
seen for both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. This decrease in emissions can be attributed to
the natural turnover of the personal vehicle fleet; essentially people buying newer vehicles that
will be, on average, more efficient and may have more effective emissions control systems. The
EPA’s tier 2 standards also apply to any vehicle that was or is manufactured after 2002.23 These
standards, along with significantly increased fuel economy, are the primary cause for the
decrease in emissions per mile.
Table 7 - Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles
Table 8 - Emissions per Mile from Gasoline Vehicles
P a g e | 34
6. Comparison of Emissions from Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles
Carbon Dioxide
The graphs (Figures 14-18) below show the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs
predicted to be on the road in a given year (by the Bass model) versus the emissions that are no
longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of their 1:1 mile replacement by the EVs.
In the first scenario considered (The coal and natural gas mix remains constant, with
95.69% of generation originating from coal and 3.51% of the generation coming from natural gas
every year), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount produced by
the gasoline vehicles (GVs) they replace in the years 2014 and 2015. However, starting in the
year 2016, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due
to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, while EVs in this scenario
are not becoming either more efficient or receiving the electricity used to power their batteries
from a less polluting source.
In the second scenario considered (The amount of natural gas used remains constant,
while all new production originates from coal. This scenario would yield a 96.86% coal and 3.14%
natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount
produced by the GVs they replace in the first year of large-scale EV adoption, 2014. However,
starting in the year 2015, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is
primarily due to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, while the
EVs in this scenario are not becoming more efficient and are receiving the electricity used to
power their batteries from an increasingly more polluting source of electricity each year (an
increasing use of coal).
In the third scenario considered (The amount of coal used remains constant, while all new
production originates from natural gas. This scenario would yield a 85.75% coal and 14.25%
natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount
produced by the GVs they replace in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. However, starting in the
year 2017, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due
to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, and although EVs are
using an improving source of electrical energy (in terms of emissions) the EV emissions would
not decrease as rapidly as the GV emissions.
P a g e | 35
In the fourth scenario considered (The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and
is replaced with natural gas, while all new production originates from natural gas. This scenario
would yield a 70.13% coal and 29.87% natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide
produced by EVs is less than the amount produced by the GVs they replace in the years 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. However, starting in the year 2019, the use of EVs would produce
more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading
to less pollution per mile, and although EVs are using an improving source of electrical energy
(in terms of emissions) the EV emissions would not decrease as rapidly as the GV emissions.
In the fifth scenario considered (The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is
replaced with natural gas, while 50% of new production originates from natural gas and 50% of
new production originates from wind power. This scenario would yield a 70.13% coal, 14.93%
natural gas and 14.93% wind power mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by
EVs is less than the amount produced by the GVs they replace in all years from 2014 to 2030.
This is due primarily to this scenario estimating that wind power (which produces no carbon
dioxide) will provide approximately 15% of the electricity used to power EVs by the year 2030.
Figure 14 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1)
P a g e | 36
Figure 15 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2)
Figure 16 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3)
Figure 17 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4)
P a g e | 37
Figure 18 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5)
P a g e | 38
Nitrogen Oxides
The graphs (Figures 19-23) below show the amount of nitrogen oxides produced by EVs
predicted to be on the road in a given year (by the Bass model) versus the emissions that are no
longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of their 1:1 ratio mile replacement by the
EVs.
Under all five scenarios considered, electric vehicles will produce more nitrogen oxides
than the GVs that they replace. This is due to the fact that Indiana’s source of electricity
generation is almost exclusively coal, which when combusted, emits large amounts of nitrogen
oxides. Even under the best case scenario (the fifth scenario), where 15% of electricity originates
from wind (which does not emit nitrogen oxides), and 15% of electricity originates from natural
gas, using EVs would still result in greater nitrogen oxide emissions. This is primarily due to the
widespread use of coal in all scenarios and the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less
pollution per mile.
Figure 19 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 1)
P a g e | 39
Figure 20 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 2)
Figure 21 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 3)
Figure 22 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 4)
P a g e | 40
Figure 23 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 5)
Sulfur Dioxide
The graphs (Figures 24-28) below show the amount of sulfur dioxide produced by EVs
predicted to be on the road in a given year (by the Bass model) versus the emissions that are no
longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of the 1:1 ratio mile replacement by the
EVs.
Under all five scenarios considered, electric vehicles will produce more sulfur dioxide
than the GVs that they replace. This is due to the fact that Indiana’s source of electricity
generation is almost exclusively coal, which when combusted, emits large amounts of sulfur
dioxide. Even under the best case scenario (the fifth scenario), where 15% of electricity
originates from wind which does not emit sulfur dioxide, and 15% of electricity originates from
natural gas, using EVs would still result in greater sulfur dioxide emissions. This is primarily due
to the widespread use of coal in all scenarios, and the fact that gasoline contains very little sulfur,
and therefore does not emit much sulfur dioxide when combusted. This, combined with the
increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, would result in EVs producing
much more sulfur dioxide emissions than GVs.
P a g e | 41
Figure 24 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1)
Figure 25 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2)
Figure 26 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3)
P a g e | 42
Figure 27 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4)
Figure 28 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5)
P a g e | 43
Discussion
Electric vehicles may be a possible alternative to gasoline vehicles in the United States.
Electric vehicles certainly have to capability to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign
oil and reduce the cost of transportation fuel, but they may be less environmentally friendly than
gasoline vehicles in some states. The results of this analysis demonstrate that electric cars
replacing gasoline powered vehicles in Indiana would result in higher levels of carbon dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions. This is primarily due to two factors: 1) Gasoline
vehicles are polluting less per year because old, heavily polluting vehicles are being replaced
with more efficient and more environmentally friendly vehicles and 2) Coal will be the main
source of energy for electric vehicles in Indiana. Switching from a GV to an EV in Indiana
would be essentially like switching from a gasoline-powered vehicle to a coal-powered vehicle.
However, this analysis did not consider exposure scenarios for possibly affected
populations. Although electric vehicles will pollute more, the impact on certain populations may
actually be decreased. For example, people living in a large city with a large number of gasoline
powered vehicles may benefit from electric vehicles because there will no longer be a large
amount of “tailpipe” emissions, instead the emissions will essentially be transferred to an
electrical generating station which can be located far outside of the city.
As this analysis demonstrates, the amount of pollutants created by electric vehicles is
inexorably tied to the source of the electricity charging the vehicle’s batteries. In order for
electric vehicles to be a good solution to the problems that gasoline vehicles create, the
electricity generation within Indiana must transition to less polluting sources, such as natural gas
or a renewable source, such as wind. Unfortunately, the states with the cheapest electricity are
also generally the most polluting, Indiana being no exception, and if Indiana decreased its levels
of pollution, the electricity prices would likely rise, making electric cars a much cleaner option,
but a less economical one.
If Hoosiers want electric vehicles, then they will either have to ensure that their
electricity sources become more environmentally friendly or understand that the environment
could be negatively impacted by a technology that is meant to be “green.”
P a g e | 44
Works Cited
1. "How Dependent Are We on Foreign Oil?" EIA's Energy in Brief. Energy Information
Administration. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.
<http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm>.
2. Bryce, Robert. Gusher of Lies. New York: Public Affairs/Perseus Book Group, 2008.
3. Hinrichs, Roger A. 2006. Energy: Its Use and the Environment, Fourth Edition. Thomson
Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.
4. "The White House Blog." Our Dependence on Foreign Oil Is Declining. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/01/our-dependence-foreign-oil-declining>.
5. Greene, David L., Janet L. Hopson, and Jia Li. "Have We Run out of Oil Yet? Oil Peaking
Analysis from an Optimist's Perspective." Energy Policy 34 (2006): 515-31.
6. Kesicki, Fabian. "The Third Oil Price Surge - What's Different This Time?" Energy Policy 38
(2010): 1596-606.
7. "OPEC Share of World Crude Oil Reserves." OPEC. Web. 05 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm>.
8. "Member Countries." OPEC. Web. 05 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm>.
9. "Reduce Oil Dependence Costs." Fuel Economy. Department of Energy. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/oildep.shtml>.
10. "DOE - Fossil Energy: U.S. Petroleum Reserves." DOE. Department of Energy. Web. 03 Feb.
2012. <http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/>.
11. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis."
Petroleum & Other Liquids. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/>.
12. "Briefing Attacking Iran: Up in the Air." The Economist (2012): 27-32.
13. "Iran's UN Envoy Says Closing Strait of Hormuz Is an Option If Threatened." Bloomberg.
Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/iran-s-un-envoysays-closing-strait-of- hormuz-is-an-option-if-threatened.html>.
14. Kronenig, Matthew. "Time to Attack Iran." Foreign Affairs (2012): 76-86.
15. "Automobile Emissions: An Overview." U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web.
12 Jan. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/05-autos.pdf>.
P a g e | 45
16. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." EPA. Environmental Protection
Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.
17. "Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide." EPA. Environmental Protection
Agency. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html>.
18. "Nitrogen Oxides: Health." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/health.html>.
19. "Nitrogen Oxide Sources." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 Feb 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data>.
20. "Sulfur Dioxide." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/>.
21. "Sulfur Dioxide Sources." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 Feb 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data>.
22. "Gasoline Sulfur Standards." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.
<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/fuels/gas-sulfur.htm>.
23. "Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur Program." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb
2012. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/tier2/index.htm>.
24. "Presidential Candidates on Energy Policy." Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 03 Feb
2012. <http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-energy-policy/p26796>.
25. Congressional Budget Office. Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and
Environmental Policy Goals. July 2010.
26. Mussato, Solange I., Giuliano Dragone, Pedro M.R. Guimaraes, Joao Paulo A. Silva, Livia M.
Carneiro, Ines C. Roberto, Antonio Vicente, Lucilia Domingues, Jose A. Teixeira.
Technological Trends, Global Market, and Challenges of Bio-Ethanol Production. 2010.
Biotechnology Advances 28, 817-830.
27. Yacobucci, Brent. Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs. 2010.
Congressional Research Service. < http://www.stoel.com/files/R40110.pdf>
28. Giampietro, Mario, Kozo Mayumi. The Biofuel Delusion. Sterling Virginia: Earthscan, 2009.
29. Khanna, Madhu, Jurgen Scheffran, David Ziberman. Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and
Policy. New York: Springer, 2010.
P a g e | 46
30. Campbell, Elizabeth. U.S., European Ethanol Boosts Food Costs. Bloomberg. 2010.
<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-19/u-s-european-ethanol-boosts-foodcosts-goldin-says.html>
31. Cleveland, Cutler. Net Energy Analysis. 2010. The Encyclopedia of Earth.
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis>
32. PBS. Timeline: History of the Electric Car. 2009.
<http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html>
33. “Plug-in Electric Vehicles: A Practical Plan for Progress. Indiana University School of
Public and Environmental Affairs. February 2011.
34. Stephan, Craig H., and John Sullivan. "Environmental and Energy Implications of Plug-In
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles." Environmental Science and Technology 42 (2008): 1185-1190.
35. “2012 Chevy Volt | Electric Car | Chevrolet." 2012 Cars, SUVs, Trucks, Crossovers & Vans.
Chevrolet. Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/>.
36. Bunkley, Nick. "GM Suspends Production of Chevrolet Volt." New York Times. Web. 15
Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/business/gm-suspends-production-ofchevrolet-volt.html?_r=2>.
37. "Chevy Volt a Bad Sign for Electric Car Sales?" CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 05 Mar. 2012.
Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57390448/chevyvolt-a-bad-sign-for-electric-car-sales/>.
38. "Nissan LEAF." Nissan Leaf Electric Car: 100% Electric. Zero Gas. Zero Tailpipe. Nissan.
Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index>.
39. "The Tesla Roadster - The Electric Supercar." The Electric Tesla Roadster. Web. 15 March
2012. <http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster>.
40. "JAGUAR TO BUILD C-X75 HYBRID SUPERCAR." Jaguar USA. Web. 15 March 2012.
<http://www.jaguar.com/us/en/about_jaguar/news_pr/project_c-x75>.
41. "The Plug-Ins Are Coming: New Cars That Pass the Pump as They Celebrate the Socket."
The Plug-Ins Are Coming. New York Times, 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 March 2012.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7DC103FF93AA25751C0A9649
D8B63>.
41. U.S. Department of Energy. Consumer Energy Tax Incentives. 2010.
<http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm>
P a g e | 47
42. Canis, Bill. "Battery Manufacturing for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: Policy Issues."
Congressional Research Service (2011).
43. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis."
Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price 2010- November 2011,. Energy Information
Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.
<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/index.cfm>.
44. "2012 Chevy Cruze | Compact Car | Chevrolet." 2012 Cars, SUVs, Trucks, Crossovers &
Vans. Chevrolet. Web. 06 April 2012. <http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze-compact-car/>.
45. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis."
Electricity. Energy Information Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.
<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/>.
46. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." EIA:
Indiana. Energy Information Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.
<http://www.eia.gov/state/state-energy-profiles.cfm?sid=IN>.
47. Becker, Thomas A. "Electric Vehicles in the United States." Center for Entrepreneurship &
Technology (2009).
48. Sterman, John D. “Business Dynamics”. McGraw Hill. 2000.
49. Mahajam, Vijay. “Diffusion of New Products: Empirical Generalizations and Managerial
Uses.” Marketing Science (1995).
50. "Population Projections Data Output: STATS Indiana." STATS Indiana: Data Everyone Can
Use. Web. 13 March 2012. <http://www.stats.indiana.edu/pop_proj/>.
51. "Indiana QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." U.S. Census. Web. 13 March 2012.
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html>.
52. "EIA Transportation Forecasting." EIA. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.
<ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/forecasting/2008_sp_02.pdf>.
53. "Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles." Electric Power Research
Institute - Natural Resource Defense Council. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.
<http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEVExecSum-vol1.pdf>.
P a g e | 48
54. "NADA Data - State of the Industry Report 2011." National Automobile Dealers Association.
Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/0798BE2A-9291-44BF-A126-0
D372FC89B8A/0/NADA_DATA_08222011.pdf>.
55. Baron, Richard. "Climate, Energy and Electricity." IEA. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.
<http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/climate_elec_annual2011SUM.pdf>.
56. "Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator." United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2010).